9 ms·

I believe when you wrote "socialist" you meant "authoritarianist"? Please don't mix-up those two concepts

by paulintrognon 10y ago

tn13 10y ago
Same.
- banach 10y ago
  Not at all (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism).
mmiu 10y ago
They meant "communist", I assume, and communist countries are always totalitarian, I can't think of an exception.
- vidarh 10y ago
  Of course not a single one of the countries you are referring to consider their countries to be communist, but socialist.
  - mmiu 10y ago
    What? Communist countries are ruled by a single communist party and do call themselves communist. As well as socialist. The terms have their differences, but "communist" is used.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  Socrates is a philosopher. Socrates is a man. Conclusion, all philosophers are men.
BjoernKW 10y ago
In theory those are different. In practice though there hasn't been a single socialist country that hasn't at least devolved into authoritarianism or even has been so right from the start (Scandinavian Socialism and modern day German Social Market Economy could be considered exceptions but I doubt these can really be considered socialist.). People keep saying: "This isn't true socialism." Well, then true socialism seems to be nothing but a pipe dream that in reality can't be implemented and hence should either be revised or replaced by a better concept.
- bertil 10y ago
  Not sure it’s a fair argument to exclude dozens of the wealthiest countries in the world because they own definition of socialism —that they practice— does not meet your imagined one. The definition is not complicated: have key industrial assets, notably transport infrastructure, owned by public authorities.
  - newman8r 10y ago
    if you define success in terms of wealth (which is a decent way to do it for most people). But these 'wealthiest countries' are doing some pretty scary stuff in the world, and on massive scales which threaten the potential for future generations to even inhabit the planet comfortably without massive restrictions and compromises.
  - BjoernKW 10y ago
    By that definition France is a socialist country. I suppose you could say that to some extent but France isn't what one usually thinks of when it comes to real-world socialism. I think socialists in particular will argue against that notion. Even worse though: Most totalitarian countries fit that description, too.
    - dsr_ 10y ago
      That would be because "socialist" and "totalitarian" are orthogonal. One describes the methods of organization of the state and its economy; the other describes the goals of the government of the state.
    - mistermumble 10y ago
      I think many American Republicans would consider France to be socialist. And would view many other countries as socialist, if they have things like national medical insurance and free college tuition. Except China. China for some reason is viewed as comfortably capitalist, despite the pictures of Chairman Mao on the currency and at Tienanmen Square. And except Russia, whose authoritarianism is admired. Talking perception here, not reality. The perception of people who used to be a marginal group of extremists but now have many people in positions of Governor, house of representatives, etc. And unfortunately they now have a real shot at the White House in the personage of their tribal Duce (a pathological egomaniac whose politics are unclear and span all ends of the spectrum within any given time period).
captainmuon 10y ago
In principle, yes you are right. However, there is only so much hedging and differentiation I can put into a post without turning it into an essay. What I wanted to say is "realsocialist" a la former Soviet Union or East Germany. I think part of the confusion is that I live in Germany, where socialist always means that kind of one-party authoritarian system. By this definition, e.g. Bernie Sanders would be a (left-wing) social democrat, but not a socialist. I know for example in France, the middle-left-wing party calls themselves socialist... I believe they are slightly left of what you'd call "liberal" in the US.
- vidarh 10y ago
  > I live in Germany, where socialist always means that kind of one-party authoritarian system. No, it doesn't. There are plenty of anti-authoritarian self-styled socialists in Germany.
- megalodon 10y ago
  > ... hedging and differentiation ... How is the distinction hard to understand? Socialism is a system characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to capitalism, which is characterised by private ownership of the means of production. Both are ideologies. You could have compared to Soviet or East Germany directly if you wanted to make a point about totalitarian regimes. Also, I'm pretty sure Germans don't consider socialism to be an authoritarian ideology. Maybe you're confusing it with national socialism (nationalsozialismus => nazism).
  - mason240 10y ago
    >Also, I'm pretty sure Germans don't consider socialism to be an authoritarian ideology. I'm not sure why the opinion of Germans matters here, they have the same capitalist economy that the US and the rest of Europe do.
  - mbreese 10y ago
    There are the proper political science definitions and then there are the meanings on the ground (so to speak). Unfortunately, the latter are fluid depending on the country and don't always line up...
yodsanklai 10y ago
It's amusing or distressing to see that "socialist" has became such a bad word in the US. Basically, if you're for things such as public education or healthcare, you're also suspected of being some kind of Stalin supporter. Successful propaganda.
mangeletti 10y ago
If socialism isn't authoritarian, that means that people can opt out of social benefits, own their own property and things, and not have to pay taxes to cover others' social benefits, right? Without going to jail, right? If not, then I guess we're talking about some form of authoritarianism. To talk about "socialism" in a sense that doesn't break the non-aggression principle (necessary for non-authoritarianism), you need to think of volunteer communes. IOW, use pooled money (just think of it as a necessary evil) to buy 1,000 acres, build a master-planned community, and offer residency to people who pitched in to buy it, and then use socialism as the guiding ideology within that commune. If it doesn't work and people want to leave, they can leave. That's a non-authoritarianism version of socialism. If you think there are others that exist in practice, I implore you to look into every true socialist country in history, including the currently failing state of Venezuela, wherefrom there is a mass exodus underway.
- akgerber 10y ago
  If capitalism isn't authoritarian, that means people can opt out of state application of property rights to land, right? Without going to jail or getting shot, right?
  - mangeletti 10y ago
    Did you mean to reply to a different comment? I didn't make any claims about capitalism or even mention it.
    - sbov 10y ago
      The point is you can apply your statement to any form of government. The word has become meaningless.
- yodsanklai 10y ago
  > If socialism isn't authoritarian, that means that people can opt out of social benefits and not have to pay taxes to cover them, right? Without going to jail, right? The same argument goes for the US. All developed countries have taxes and most people agree that they are necessary. I Besides, I don't feel Sweden is more authoritarian than the US because it has higher tax rates or more public services.
sctb 10y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12495376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12495376 and marked it off-topic.

I believe when you wrote "socialist" you meant "authoritarianist"? Please don't mix-up those two concepts

tn13 10y ago

Same.

banach 10y ago
Not at all (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_anarchism).

mmiu 10y ago

They meant "communist", I assume, and communist countries are always totalitarian, I can't think of an exception.

vidarh 10y ago
Of course not a single one of the countries you are referring to consider their countries to be communist, but socialist.
- mmiu 10y ago
  What? Communist countries are ruled by a single communist party and do call themselves communist. As well as socialist. The terms have their differences, but "communist" is used.
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
Socrates is a philosopher. Socrates is a man. Conclusion, all philosophers are men.

BjoernKW 10y ago

In theory those are different. In practice though there hasn't been a single socialist country that hasn't at least devolved into authoritarianism or even has been so right from the start (Scandinavian Socialism and modern day German Social Market Economy could be considered exceptions but I doubt these can really be considered socialist.). People keep saying: "This isn't true socialism." Well, then true socialism seems to be nothing but a pipe dream that in reality can't be implemented and hence should either be revised or replaced by a better concept.

bertil 10y ago
Not sure it’s a fair argument to exclude dozens of the wealthiest countries in the world because they own definition of socialism —that they practice— does not meet your imagined one. The definition is not complicated: have key industrial assets, notably transport infrastructure, owned by public authorities.
- newman8r 10y ago
  if you define success in terms of wealth (which is a decent way to do it for most people). But these 'wealthiest countries' are doing some pretty scary stuff in the world, and on massive scales which threaten the potential for future generations to even inhabit the planet comfortably without massive restrictions and compromises.
- BjoernKW 10y ago
  By that definition France is a socialist country. I suppose you could say that to some extent but France isn't what one usually thinks of when it comes to real-world socialism. I think socialists in particular will argue against that notion. Even worse though: Most totalitarian countries fit that description, too.
  - dsr_ 10y ago
    That would be because "socialist" and "totalitarian" are orthogonal. One describes the methods of organization of the state and its economy; the other describes the goals of the government of the state.
  - mistermumble 10y ago
    I think many American Republicans would consider France to be socialist. And would view many other countries as socialist, if they have things like national medical insurance and free college tuition. Except China. China for some reason is viewed as comfortably capitalist, despite the pictures of Chairman Mao on the currency and at Tienanmen Square. And except Russia, whose authoritarianism is admired. Talking perception here, not reality. The perception of people who used to be a marginal group of extremists but now have many people in positions of Governor, house of representatives, etc. And unfortunately they now have a real shot at the White House in the personage of their tribal Duce (a pathological egomaniac whose politics are unclear and span all ends of the spectrum within any given time period).

captainmuon 10y ago

In principle, yes you are right. However, there is only so much hedging and differentiation I can put into a post without turning it into an essay. What I wanted to say is "realsocialist" a la former Soviet Union or East Germany. I think part of the confusion is that I live in Germany, where socialist always means that kind of one-party authoritarian system. By this definition, e.g. Bernie Sanders would be a (left-wing) social democrat, but not a socialist. I know for example in France, the middle-left-wing party calls themselves socialist... I believe they are slightly left of what you'd call "liberal" in the US.

vidarh 10y ago
> I live in Germany, where socialist always means that kind of one-party authoritarian system. No, it doesn't. There are plenty of anti-authoritarian self-styled socialists in Germany.
megalodon 10y ago
> ... hedging and differentiation ... How is the distinction hard to understand? Socialism is a system characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to capitalism, which is characterised by private ownership of the means of production. Both are ideologies. You could have compared to Soviet or East Germany directly if you wanted to make a point about totalitarian regimes. Also, I'm pretty sure Germans don't consider socialism to be an authoritarian ideology. Maybe you're confusing it with national socialism (nationalsozialismus => nazism).
- mason240 10y ago
  >Also, I'm pretty sure Germans don't consider socialism to be an authoritarian ideology. I'm not sure why the opinion of Germans matters here, they have the same capitalist economy that the US and the rest of Europe do.
- mbreese 10y ago
  There are the proper political science definitions and then there are the meanings on the ground (so to speak). Unfortunately, the latter are fluid depending on the country and don't always line up...

yodsanklai 10y ago

It's amusing or distressing to see that "socialist" has became such a bad word in the US. Basically, if you're for things such as public education or healthcare, you're also suspected of being some kind of Stalin supporter. Successful propaganda.

mangeletti 10y ago

If socialism isn't authoritarian, that means that people can opt out of social benefits, own their own property and things, and not have to pay taxes to cover others' social benefits, right? Without going to jail, right? If not, then I guess we're talking about some form of authoritarianism. To talk about "socialism" in a sense that doesn't break the non-aggression principle (necessary for non-authoritarianism), you need to think of volunteer communes. IOW, use pooled money (just think of it as a necessary evil) to buy 1,000 acres, build a master-planned community, and offer residency to people who pitched in to buy it, and then use socialism as the guiding ideology within that commune. If it doesn't work and people want to leave, they can leave. That's a non-authoritarianism version of socialism. If you think there are others that exist in practice, I implore you to look into every true socialist country in history, including the currently failing state of Venezuela, wherefrom there is a mass exodus underway.

akgerber 10y ago
If capitalism isn't authoritarian, that means people can opt out of state application of property rights to land, right? Without going to jail or getting shot, right?
- mangeletti 10y ago
  Did you mean to reply to a different comment? I didn't make any claims about capitalism or even mention it.
  - sbov 10y ago
    The point is you can apply your statement to any form of government. The word has become meaningless.
yodsanklai 10y ago
> If socialism isn't authoritarian, that means that people can opt out of social benefits and not have to pay taxes to cover them, right? Without going to jail, right? The same argument goes for the US. All developed countries have taxes and most people agree that they are necessary. I Besides, I don't feel Sweden is more authoritarian than the US because it has higher tax rates or more public services.

sctb 10y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12495376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12495376 and marked it off-topic.